> P.S. Many professors from India's top tech institutes, startups, entrepreneurs & other eminent people have spoken against "Free Basics".
Or essentially everyone that would not be a target market for this service.
Or essentially everyone that would not be a target market for this service.
Really, there aren't any pros of Free Basics when you take into account the fact that a similar, net neutral business model can and has been implemented (by Aircel). The details are different (data cap or speed cap instead of walled garden), but the business model is the same -- get people to start using the internet for free in a limited way, and some of them will come to the non-free services. But net neutral. You can basically take Facebook and the walled garden completely out of the picture and it would probably have similar efficacy.
Why can Facebook and Zuckerberg support free basics -- when they're not even from India, but these smart Indians cannot oppose it because they're not the target audience?
If is the difference between saying that smoking at 18 is bad and pushing a ban on selling cigarettes to adults who are considered too young. By all means, inform me. But do not take my freedom from me, even if it is in my best interest. For example, I strongly oppose bans on selling cigarettes to young adults even though I have never smoked and I hate smoking. I love the advice of how it is bad for you, but I love having the freedom to choose not to smoke instead of having it forced upon me.
But, I also realize it isn't this simple, as you have the other side using very underhanded if not outright illegal means to push what is in their best benefit. Personally this leads to me being at a moral impasse, because while I love the freedom to choose things that are less than beneficial for me, I realize that applied at large this causes major problems and I personally cannot hand wave it all away by saying they are adults responsible for their own choices (I honestly don't draw a major distinction between adults and children in this regard).
I dislike Zuckerberg for being deceitful as to the goals of this 'charity'. But I also dislike those who want to remove choices, even those that are not in my favor.
From that point of view, there are things which are strictly better than free basics which address these concerns (and net neutrality affects everyone, it's not just the "choice" of the people using Free Basics).
If these other models didn't exist there would probably be a weaker opposition to Free Basics. I'd mostly be on the fence -- preferring that net neutrality wasn't affected, but still supporting (or, not opposing) Free Basics since it's an IMO net gain. But these other options do exist.
What if there was a way to get the stress relief and other effects of smoking in a perfectly healthy and otherwise equivalent way? Would you ban cigarette smoking then? This "safe smoke" is not inferior to regular smoking according to smokers. It feels the exact same and has the exact same effect. If this exists, why allow cigarettes to exist? Okay, maybe you still want that choice. What if secondhand smoke was a much larger danger than it is now, and if a sizeable chunk of people start smoking, a lot of other people may get cancer just by sharing the same streets? In that case, would you allow it?
It's the same situation here.
The pros are that its a service that people have a choice to use so if a customer freely chooses to do so, that person is obviously off. If you, or Aircel, want to provide a more competitive service you are free to do so. A different model that you feel is more effective is not an argument to restrict another competing model.
What's you definition of elite ? There's a very diverse background of people who have spoken against "Free Basics". Also keep in mind, that your average Joe won't even bother to read the fine print about the pros/cons of "Free Basics". So in a way, you have to depend on someone with a keen interest to voice an opinion.
I believe the keen interest lies with those that are going to potentially use the service. These "elites" don't know the people that could potentially use this service. They don't know their values, their circumstances, or anything about them. It is presumptuous to think that those outside groups somehow know whats best and can choose for those being forced to forgo the service what sacrifice they should make for their ideals
If someone wants to smoke tobacco or pot, why should I get any say in the matter?
I'll tell you how it'll go. You would probably as a way of casual conversation(in What's App or FB messenger) , mention that it would be nice if you bought an Air Conditioner. Now, normally FB won't(hopefully) read those messages because of its privacy policy.
Take free basics now, they're explicitly static that they can decrypt traffic. So now that you've mentioned an Air Conditioner, FB will start showing ads the next day saying "Air Conditioners at a discounted price". You get influenced and buy it(remember, you did not impulsively go to a shop and seek to buy one, you just mentioned it as a way of casual conversation). Do you see where its going?
That's one part of the problem. The rest is already summarized nicely by IIT professors.
Elites in our country have decided slavery should be banned, no matter what. Who are they to say a starving poor man can't sell himself into slavery in exchange for food for his family? How classist.
And it's not internet colonialism for Facebook to swoop down, decide what Indians need, and take over their internet?
In fact, I've seen many well informed arguments from the so-called "elites" with numbers about internet adoption and _why_ the Internet isn't used much in India. I've seen none of this from Facebook; which has just assumed that India is full of clueless poor people.
For example, if you look at the costs of mobile data in India, the cost of a smartphone that supports the modern web (enough for sites like, say, Facebook to be usable) is more than the cost of data for a year or two. Most of the people Free Basics "helped" already were able to get internet. Folks are jumping onto it because it's free (and "free" has its own charm "If it's free, why not?"). There may also be people who already had internet switching to the free thing since they mostly use Facebook/Whatsapp/etc.
And given that Facebook isn't even paying for the data, what's it's role here? Some infrastructure (which is unnecessary in the alternate net neutral free internet models -- the infrastructure is only to make "internet.org" work), and some outreach.
You see a bunch of elites pushing back a philanthrophic company trying to help the poor. We see a company deviously inserting itself in the midst of something our telecom operators could have made work on their own, and structuring it in a dangerous way so that it is highly benefited.
(On a side note, a lot of students who came from poverty are on the side of the "elites", but this is anecdotal)
> the sacrifice that the poor will make (by forgoing this service) to serve their ideal (net neutrality)
I already said that there are net neutral ways of doing the same thing. It's not a sacrifice. You're making the same non sequitur the article says that Zuckerberg is -- saying no to Free Basics is not the same as saying no to.
net neutrality isn't even the only ideal involved here. Privacy is. You know, that thing the West is so crazy about right now? Free Basics is structured as a massive MITM. Facebook is in the business of data, and we can't trust them to not exploit the MITM.
Are you going to tell us to ignore this -- the same thing the West is so crazy about -- because it helps the poor? Even though, I reiterate, there are multiple models which have worked which provide internet to the poor without any of this crap? You're asking us to roll over and accept whatever we get because poor people. If you're from the West (many of the folks making this kind of argument are), that's way more elitist.
> want to provide a more competitive service you are free to do so
The internet, as Zuck himself is saying, is a public good and need. You don't unleash full market forces on those; capitalism can be harsh on them. An example is what's happened to the cost of higher education in the US.
The whole tone of this is very condescending. You (presumably) don't know these people that will be the market for this product. I don't think you should look down on them and deny them autonomy as to the service that they use.
> And given that Facebook isn't even paying for the data, what's it's role here? Some infrastructure (which is unnecessary in the alternate net neutral free internet models -- the infrastructure is only to make "internet.org" work), and some outreach.
I don't see your point. Who cares what Facebook is paying for or their involvement. You're arguing that a free service that could help out many people be banned by fiat. I think the bar should be set pretty high.
> We see a company deviously inserting itself in the midst of something our telecom operators could have made work on their own, and structuring it in a dangerous way so that it is highly benefited.
By all means, if you and others think there is a better model, implement it as a competitor and allow people chose. Partner with the telecom operators, get them to do it. Preventing competition will not achieve your hypothetical ideal.
> Are you going to tell us to ignore this -- the same thing the West is so crazy about -- because it helps the poor?
I'm not asking you to do anything. Let those choosing to use the service or not choose what to consider when deciding whether to use this product or not.
>You don't unleash full market forces on those; capitalism can be harsh on them.
Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other system in human history. Extreme poverty has fallen to below 10% for the first time [0].
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/05/world-bank-ex...
I do know many of them. I don't think it's condescending to say folks will have a "It's free, why not?" attitude because many people (including me) has that attitude -- it wasn't a statement of the attitude of the poor, it was a statement of the attitude of people.
> I don't see your point. Who cares what Facebook is paying for or their involvement.
The point is that Facebook's involvement is an addon to an existing system that could have worked on its own. This point was to support the next bit about "deviously inserting itself".
> Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other system in human history.
Another non sequitur. I wasn't saying capitalism can't/won't help poverty. I was saying full capitalism on basic needs is a bad idea. Even in the US these services are government controlled or highly regulated. Market forces aren't magic fix-everything solutions.
> I'm not asking you to do anything.
The "you" here was a general thing directed at Free Basics supporters and Mark.
> By all means, if you and others think there is a better model, implement it as a competitor and allow people chose.
It's been implemented partially (Aircel, Gigato, Grameenphone, not all in India). My point about full capitalism and market forces remains.
Note that Facebook's model requires a sacrifice of net neutrality from the get-go. Even if the market forces decide against Free Basics, net neutrality is long gone by then.
This is the heart of your argument. You believe that this undermining net neutrality, and it probably is. I don't see why there should be a different set of rules of paid services and those with a different model that doesn't involve direct payment from the user. As you can probably guess, I am not in support of net neutrality, so this is where we differ. I respect your resolve on the issue especially when faced with what seems like a hypothetical. I could see someone arguing against net neutrality by asking "hypothetically, under net neutrality I would be unable to offer free internet with limited functionality to the poorest people in the world...".
I believe this is a better argument to make and the rest is really an unnecessary distraction and can often be interpreted as condescension of the poor.
Yes, and this is the argument Zuck is trying to make (well, he's sort of skirting it but it's a similar core argument), and this is the argument I've been refuting here -- like I said there are models (Aircel, Gigato, Grameenphone) which have worked which solve the free internet thing without impacting net neutrality or privacy. This is not a hypothetical.
I see that you don't care about net neutrality -- a valid opinion to have. But here we have multiple solutions to the same problem, one of which impacts net neutrality -- something which a lot of people care about (and others, like you, don't). All other things being equal (they aren't, but there aren't any other compelling arguments for facebook's solution), shouldn't we choose the neutral solution? If you don't care about net neutrality, the solution picked won't matter. But this is a solution agreeable with the people who care about net neutrality. So everyone's happy, except Facebook.
Mind you, that so far none of the "India's top tech institutes, startups, entrepreneurs & other eminent people" are forcing general population to reject the offer. They're just explaining what the costs and the long-term consequences are. Who, if not them, is supposed to do that?
Welcome to XXI century. We're making the world so complicated that you often can't trust an ordinary person to make a good decision for themselves.
So you deny the poor autonomy since they're poor? Poor != uniformed. They're not subjects of the state due to their circumstances.
Because I love quotes:
'Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God cannot retain it.' - Abraham Lincoln, letter to H.L. Pierce, April 6, 1859.
> Mind you, that so far none of the "India's top tech institutes, startups, entrepreneurs & other eminent people" are forcing general population to reject the offer. They're just explaining what the costs and the long-term consequences are. Who, if not them, is supposed to do that?
I have no objection to that. They can advocate that it should not be used. I am only opposed to banning this service.
> Poor != uniformed.
I didn't think along this line. It's more of "general population == uninformed", especially when it comes to science and technology. It's too new and it's changing too fast. Societies internalize things very slowly.
I love quotes too, but denying freedom isn't what's happening. A big issue in our times is that people have very limited capabilities to exercise their freedom for any good. Not only the world is too big and complex, in every aspect of our lives we're constantly facing armies of malicious people that are paid for fucking us over. "Free will" sounds cool, but it loses much of its glamour when you see how easy is to manipulate people into doing things that go against their best interest.
> I have no objection to that. They can advocate that it should not be used. I am only opposed to banning this service.
Yeah, I'm not advocating a ban either. But I don't see anything bad about the third-party "elites" speaking up. They aren't just random celebrities, they're the people with knowledge and means to understand this particular issue.
Charity is not the reason why you're not the intended audience of that market.
Regarding net neutrality, that idea needs to die (and I know it's a hugely unpopular thing to say on HN). All bits are NOT created equal, some bits are more economically valuable than others. This is a fight you can't win, because it isn't against special interest groups etc, it is against the reality itself.
You're making the exact same fallacy the article says Zuck makes. Free Basics is not the only solution, there are other solutions out there which don't need Facebook's involvement, which could and should be implemented. Opposing Free Basics is not opposing free internet. Get rid of that strawman.